Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38618270›Full record

ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2024

Analysis of reasons for medical malpractice litigation due to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Haad Arif, Jacob Razzouk, Daniel Bohen, Omar Ramos, Olumide Danisa, Paul Cheng, Wayne Cheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World neurosurgery: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Haad ArifSchool of Medicine, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA.
Jacob RazzoukSchool of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
Daniel BohenViterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Omar RamosDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Olumide DanisaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
Paul ChengLaw Offices of Paul Cheng & Associates, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Wayne ChengDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jerry L Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital, 25805 Barton Road Suite A106, Loma Linda, CA, 92354, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDF) are among the most common cervical spine operations, with over 137,000 surgeries performed annually. Understanding reasons underlying malpractice pertaining to ACDF may inform physicians of practices to improve delivery of patient care and mitigate malpractice. The aim of our study was to analyze the causes and outcomes for lawsuits pertaining to ACDF. Methods: The Westlaw Edge and Verdict Search databases were queried for malpractice claims utilizing the keywords "anterior cervical discectomy and fusion" and "ACDF". Inclusion criteria was based on relevance of case grievance(s) to ACDF. Data collected included date of case hearing, plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, verdict ruling, location of filed claim, monetary award, and sustained injuries. Results: Fifty cases were included in this study after excluding 1933 cases. Of the 50 cases, 34 (68%) resulted in a defendant outcome, 8 (16%) resulted in a plaintiff outcome, and 8 (16%) resulted in settlement. Plaintiff verdicts resulted in an average monetary payment of $9.70 million, while settlements resulted in an average payment of $2.06 million. Reasons for litigation were divided into 10 categories, most commonly improper postoperative management (20%), hardware failure (18%), intraoperative error (14%), off-label use of implants (14%), and insufficient informed consent (12%). Conclusions: Malpractice claims due to ACDF are associated with higher frequencies of plaintiff verdicts and higher monetary costs compared to other spinal surgery procedures. There does not appear to be supporting evidence that spinal cord neuromonitoring is mandatory for ACDF procedures from a medicolegal standpoint.

Indexed as

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusionLitigationMalpracticeVerdictSearchWestlaw

Identifiers

PMID38618270
PMCPMC11015485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.